In a critical examination of former President Donald Trump's New York trial concerning alleged falsified business records related to Stormy Daniels payments, Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley expressed strong disapproval.
Breitbart News reported that Jonathan Turley condemned the trial proceedings against former President Donald Trump in New York as 'absurd,' focusing on the allegations of falsifying business records tied to Stormy Daniels.
During a conversation on Fox News Channel's "America’s Newsroom," host Dana Perino engaged Jonathan Turley, bringing his perspective on the legal scenario facing Trump. Using a quote attributed to Cicero, Turley, "the more laws, the less justice," reflected on the volume of cases against Trump and suggested that justice is being compromised.
Turley's observation grounds his criticism in the number and nature of cases against the former president, pointing out a fundamental concern with the legal processes applied in Trump's situation.
Jonathan Turley elaborated on why the New York case struck him as particularly egregious. He noted that the case against Trump was built around a misdemeanor with an ostensibly expired statute of limitations, only to be revived in a manner he found questionable. According to Turley, this exemplifies an approach to law enforcement that appears uniquely tailored to target Trump, veering away from standard legal practices.
Moreover, Turley pointedly criticized the underpinning logic of the prosecution's case. He argued it falsely attempts to portray Trump as conspiring to file false business records to conceal what was purportedly a federal crime.
However, Turley contended that the payment in question wasn’t classified as a campaign contribution, undermining the case’s foundation.
The legal pundit also lamented the broader support for this prosecution within New York, hinting at a political agenda against Trump energizing this legal pursuit. This remark mirrors a sentiment of disillusionment with how laws are being applied in a highly politicized context.
Turley voiced concerns regarding the court of public opinion in New York surrounding these legal proceedings. He implied that the electorate's decisions to support figures with a pronounced intent to pursue Trump may reflect a preference for a justice system that operates selectively.
According to Turley, this is a deviation from the principles of impartiality and fairness that are foundational to equitable legal systems.
"None of that appears to matter, and that’s why a lot of us are looking at this and recoiling. This is not how the law is supposed to be," Turley expressed, underscoring dismay at the deviation from normative legal principles in handling Trump's case.
Turley's disdain is palpable as he recounts the selective application of the law he perceives in Trump's prosecution, leading him to conclude:
New Yorkers appear to like it this way. They elected James, who ran on bagging Trump for anything, didn’t even mention what. And they now are lionizing this district attorney who’s putting together what many of us consider to be an absurd indictment.
In summary, Jonathan Turley's commentary on the legal proceedings against Donald Trump in New York represents a pointed critique of the specific case concerning Stormy Daniels and broader trends in how justice is being approached and administered in highly charged political contexts. Turley underscores a deviation from legal norms and principles, arguing for a reevaluation of justice in politically sensitive cases.
